I started with the PowerScore bibles and then I later switched to the Manhattan LSAT technique. PS recommends reading the stimulus first, and as I recall, a big portion of that argument was based on the assumption that it is always appropriate to identify whether the stimulus contains a fact set or an argument before knowing exactly what type of question it is. However, whether or not this assumption was ever valid, I don't think it is valid on more recent LSATs, because MBT and MSS questions tend to make arguments on more recent tests, whereas on the older tests, that was much less common than it is now.

So, with those particular types of questions, it is helpful to know in advance that you do not need to worry about identifying an assumption, since your job is just to figure out what can be inferred from the statements.

Also, sometimes the "Role of a Statement" questions can have convoluted arguments. Knowing that you don't need to keep track of assumptions on those stimuli is (I think) a big time saver, since you know when you're approaching the stimulus that you're really just trying to identify the structure, without having to think too deeply about the core and whether or not it is valid logic or what assumptions are being made.

This isn’t really a question to me. Read the question stem first so you know what you’re doing. You should be tackling a necessary assumption question differently than a must be true question. Making the mindset automatic once you know the kind of question you are attacking will lead to a more efficient process (which means more time to review and, over time, fewer minuses in the LR column)

Wrong Marx wrote:I started with the PowerScore bibles and then I later switched to the Manhattan LSAT technique. PS recommends reading the stimulus first, and as I recall, a big portion of that argument was based on the assumption that it is always appropriate to identify whether the stimulus contains a fact set or an argument before knowing exactly what type of question it is.

It's helpful to know the reasoning behind the suggestion, so thanks for that.

However, whether or not this assumption was ever valid, I don't think it is valid on more recent LSATs, because MBT and MSS questions tend to make arguments on more recent tests, whereas on the older tests, that was much less common than it is now.

So, with those particular types of questions, it is helpful to know in advance that you do not need to worry about identifying an assumption, since your job is just to figure out what can be inferred from the statements.

Also, sometimes the "Role of a Statement" questions can have convoluted arguments. Knowing that you don't need to keep track of assumptions on those stimuli is (I think) a big time saver, since you know when you're approaching the stimulus that you're really just trying to identify the structure, without having to think too deeply about the core and whether or not it is valid logic or what assumptions are being made.

I agree. I took my last PT using the "read Question stem first" approach and it worked out for me (I wasn't short on time; did pretty well overall on the LR sections). I just didn't know whether it was worth giving the other approach a shot as well. It's getting pretty close to the December test, so if anything I may just try the other approach out on a single section.

OVOXO wrote:This isn’t really a question to me. Read the question stem first so you know what you’re doing. You should be tackling a necessary assumption question differently than a must be true question. Making the mindset automatic once you know the kind of question you are attacking will lead to a more efficient process (which means more time to review and, over time, fewer minuses in the LR column)

If there were less question types, I could see reading the stim first. But even then, I don't get the appeal. True, biggest thing to do in most questions is to figure out what's wrong with arguments, but it's nice to know what exactly you have to do with that knowledge beforehand.

Otunga wrote:If there were less question types, I could see reading the stim first. But even then, I don't get the appeal. True, biggest thing to do in most questions is to figure out what's wrong with arguments, but it's nice to know what exactly you have to do with that knowledge beforehand.

I agree! The suggestion (to look at the stimulus first) caught me off guard though (it seemed so obvious that it would be more wise to read the Question stem first!) - I just didn't want to brush it off without giving it a second thought and getting a second opinion (everyone's opinions here so far have helped me validate my original assumption though ).

I went in order except for a few instances when I was crunched for time on the final 5/6 and thus skipped to the penultimate or final question (at least one of which tends to be quite easy), or to relatively short questions.

drawstring wrote:I went in order except for a few instances when I was crunched for time on the final 5/6 and skipped to the penultimate or final question (at least one of which tends to be quite easy), or to relatively short questions.

Have you tried going 1-10, 20-26, 11-19?

How do you avoid bubbling errors when you skip around like that? I find that answering the questions in order means that I'm less likely to misbubble my answers. I'd be too nnervous about bubbling errors that it would probably slow me down considerably (did I bubble it right? let me double, triple check it). Usually, when I skip questions, I bubble in my best guess right then and there, and then if I have time, I come back to it at the end, rework the problem, erase, and rebubble. (BTW -- I only bubble at the end of two facing pages, rather than after each question.)

drawstring wrote:I went in order except for a few instances when I was crunched for time on the final 5/6 and skipped to the penultimate or final question (at least one of which tends to be quite easy), or to relatively short questions.

Have you tried going 1-10, 20-26, 11-19?

How do you avoid bubbling errors when you skip around like that? I find that answering the questions in order means that I'm less likely to misbubble my answers. I'd be too nnervous about bubbling errors that it would probably slow me down considerably (did I bubble it right? let me double, triple check it). Usually, when I skip questions, I bubble in my best guess right then and there, and then if I have time, I rework the problem, erase, and rebubble. (BTW -- I only bubble at the end of two facing pages, rather than after each question.)

When I deviated from answering in order I double-checked that the number I just bubbled on the scantron matched the number of the question I just answered in the test book, and I'd do this until I was back answering questions in order of what remained. I developed this habit to the point where it was fairly automatic and could be done quickly enough (in about a second or two) for skipping to still be effective.

I think a key for me was being calm during LR (my strongest section and a -1 overall on the real test), as it prevented me from panicking while taking one or two seconds to ensure that my bubbling was correct and from doing the type of nervous triple-checking that you describe. Moreover, I'd bubble after each question and jump around for only one or two of them, which also tended to be close in proximity, so I didn't have much more to keep track of than I would have if I instead answered in order from start to finish.